The applicants sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a residential property after their Agreement of Purchase and Sale failed to close.
They claimed specific performance or, alternatively, damages.
The respondents denied breaching the agreement and opposed the CPL, having entered into a second agreement to sell the property.
The court granted the CPL, finding that the applicants had a triable claim to an interest in land and that the property was unique, making damages an unsatisfactory remedy, especially given the rising real estate market and the applicants' inability to use their deposit for another purchase.
The court also balanced the prejudice, noting the respondents' decision to enter a second agreement while the applicants' claim was active.